Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as Cr.Misc. 66/2026 (SHC). In this matter between Cr.Misc. 66/2026 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana - Dr. Muhammad Murtaza Shaikh and Another (Applicant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Cr.Misc. 66/2026 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana CITATION: 2026 SHC LAR 832 PARTIES: Dr. Muhammad Murtaza Shaikh and Another (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 16-APR-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Hamid Bhurgri A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA Criminal Misc. Application No.S-66 of 2026

Before; Mr. Justice Abdul Hamid Bhurgri.

Applicants : 1. Dr. Muhammad Murtaza son of Noor Ahmed Shaikh, 2. Muhammad Mohsin son of Shafi Muhammad Mashori, through M/S Safdar Ali Ghouri and Idrees Ahmed Mangi, Advocates.

Respondents : Through Mr. Sardar Ali Solangi, D.P.G for State. Mr. Syed Shafquat Ali Shah, Advocate for respondent No.4

Date of Hearing : 09.04.2026 Date of Order : 16.04.2026.

O R D E R

Abdul Hamid Bhurgri J .- Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561 -A, Cr.P.C., the applicants/proposed accused have assailed the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned III -Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, whereby an application under Section 22 -A(6)(i), Cr.P.C., filed by respondent No.4, namely Daraz Hussain, was allowed with a direction to respondent No.1 to record his statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C., and proceed in accordance with law. 2. The case of respondent No.4 before the learned Justice of Peace is that on 31.01.2026 at about 02:44 p.m., the proposed accused, who are the present applicants, allegedly took away his Corolla Altis Grande-2022 bearing registration No. BWF-079 from a parking area, and that CCTV footage of the incident is available. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that there exists a property dispute between the parties and the present proceedings have been initiated wit h mala fide intent to harass and

2 {Cr. Misc: Appln. No. S-66 of 2026}

pressurize the applicants. It was further argued that no cognizable offence is made out; that the alleged photographs/CCTV footage do not establish the presence of the applicants at the relevant time; and that the impugned order is erroneous. Learned counsel further submitted that the mother of respondent No.4 had also filed an application under Sections 22 -A & 22 -B, Cr.P.C., regarding an occurrence allegedly taking place on the same date and time, which application was dism issed, and that such fact has not been disclosed by respondent No.4. He has relied upon case laws reported in PLD 2010 SC 691, 2013 PCr.L.J 13, 2010 YLR 189, 2016 SCMR 581 and 2013 PCr.L.J 122. 4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.4, duly assisted by learned Deputy Prosecutor General, opposed the application and submitted that the matter requires proper investigation and that the impugned order has b een passed strictly in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is settled law that the jurisdiction of the Ex -Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22 - A(6), Cr.P.C., is limited in scope, and such Court is only required to examine whether the information prima facie di scloses commission of a cognizable offence so as to warrant action under Section 154, Cr.P.C and the Justice of Peace is not competent to conduct a detailed inquiry or to resolve disputed questions of fact and is not to assume the role of an Investigating Officer or adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations. The said principle has recently been

3 {Cr. Misc: Appln. No. S-66 of 2026}

reaffirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Qamber Ali Shah v. The State (2024 SCMR 1123 ), reiterating that disputed questions of fact are to be left for investigation and the Justice of Peace cannot embark upon a deeper probe at this stage. 6. The contentions raised by the applicants, including the plea of mala fide, existence of a civil dispute, and the argument regarding non-disclosure of facts in relation to proceedings initiated by the mother of respondent No.4, involve disputed questions of fact whi ch require probe and investigation and cannot be adjudicated upon in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., particularly when such matters fall within the domain of investigation. 7. The impugned order merely directs the police to examine the complaint of respondent No.4 in terms of Section 154, Cr.P.C, and to proceed strictly in accordance with law. Such direction is in consonance with settled legal principles, and no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional defect has been poin ted out which may justify interference by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are tentative in nature and have been recorded only for the purpose of deciding the present application; the same shall not prejudice either party at any stage. In case, upon examination o f the complaint, a cognizable offence is made out, the concerned Station House Officer shall record the statement of the complainant in terms of Section 154, Cr.P.C, and proceed further strictly in

4 {Cr. Misc: Appln. No. S-66 of 2026}

accordance with law. The Investigating Officer, thereafter, shall conduct the investigation independently and without being influenced by any observation contained in this order. 9. In view of the above, the instant application, bei ng devoid of merits, is dismissed and the interim order dated 02.03.2026 is hereby recalled. 10. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Judge

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant